from the but-of-course dept

For a variety of reasons, the MPAA chose Australia as the testing ground for its effort to force ISPs to implement a three-strikes type provision. And make no mistake about it, it was the MPAA -- driven by Hollywood -- that was involved. While the anti-piracy group in Australia, AFACT, wanted to pretend it was an Australian effort, some leaked cables have shown otherwise. The effort focused on picking on one particular ISP, iiNet, which was chosen because it wasn't too big (so didn't have as much money) and wasn't too small (so people noticed). The charges? iiNet failed to wave a magic wand and stop piracy without convictions. iiNet turned out to be the wrong target for a number of reasons, including the fact that the CEO had no problem responding clearly and in an outspoken manner that if there's no legal proof of illegality, it did not seem right to cut someone off. Tragically for the MPAA, the courts have agreed with iiNet.

But, the MPAA is nothing if not persistent in their global desire to blame everyone else for their member studios' unwillingness to adapt. Even after the loss, the MPAA has been threatening more ISPs, and has now released a highly questionable study, laundered through a few organizations of course, from a company that doesn't appear to exist other than to push out MPAA propaganda. The study attempts to show that a three strikes regime would decrease infringement by over 70%. The only problem? The actual data doesn't seem to support that at all, because it includes asking people who don't file share at all how they would react to receiving a "strike." If you don't file share and someone says you'll receive a strike and potentially lose your broadband, you're pretty likely to say you won't keep file sharing. No sweat off your back, since you weren't already. And, even then, the numbers don't really support the MPAA, because a higher percentage of people said they'd keep file sharing than said they were file sharing in the first place! From TorrentFreak:

If 72 percent say they would stop sharing after a warning, then 28 percent didnít agree with this statement. And since only 22 percent of the people said they used file-sharing software in 2011 (the only people who would be affected by a three strikes system), this means that warnings from ISPs wouldnít even deter people who arenít the target of this system in the first place.

Or put differently, it could very well be that none of the 22 percent file-sharers indicated that they would stop doing so when notified by their ISP.

Hell, if you wanted to be silly, it would be entirely possible to read this study to suggest that sending a strike encourages more people to file share...

I love the way they try to treat us like complete idiots.. The populace isn't fooled in the slightest.. It's a shame that our politicians are idiots however, who'll probably swallow this shit hook line and sinker o.o

Re:

Er, if in place presumably 100% of those charged would /be/ stopped.

Whether they want to or not. Don't know why you focus on a study... Oh, yes I do. Because it's open to conjecture, while being cut off by ISP is fairly certain.

I'd interpret it as implying that 72% of those warned would cease file-sharing. It's irrelevant what portion get those notices. -- The 28 / 22 percent juggling in the italic part is just flat out stupid, not even up to misleading.

Re: Re: Er, if in place presumably 100% of those charged would /be/ stopped.

Of course the focus will be on the false positives. A pirate gets their internet killed and says "well fuck. time to change providers." Someone totally innocent loses internet and let the outrage begin.

Have you ever seen anyone more angry or vindictive than someone falsely accused - more than falsely accused, judged and punished? These are the people that will put an end to these shenanigans.

Re: Re: Re: Er, if in place presumably 100% of those charged would /be/ stopped.

Re: Er, if in place presumably 100% of those charged would /be/ stopped.

This "study" was based on 1644 people Australia Wide (28mill population, 11mill households) doing a phone poll, which newspoll normally do at night, on a sunday, and those people called are NOT on a Government legislated Do Not Call List that is HUGE!!!! (Its a criminal offence to call people on it for private polling).

The other part of the so called "blind" study, which is not a blind study in any way shape or form, was over a day period and they specifically wanted only a very specific demographic set in only two areas of Australia (Sydney, Melbourne) and they all had to be employed full time too.

The data is bogus, the findings are bogus, any interpretation whatsoever is therefore... bogus

Re: Er, if in place presumably 100% of those charged would /be/ stopped.

The problem is that no one is being charged with anything. Three strike rules don't charge, they suspect that ootb is engaged in piracy so after three "warnings" ootb, a complete innocent, is cut off the Internet.

Perhaps a complete innocent in that torrenting and http file transfer are both too hard for him.

All silliness aside. Charging means something entirely different than suspicion. It also indicates that the person charged has the opportunity to challenge the evidence protected by the presumption of innocence.

Just don't bother the MPAA and it's phantom polling firms down under to figure that part out. Legality gives them headaches.

Re: Re:

Same recycled efluence

I saw that, and I use this word only because they call it such, "Study" last week (or more ago) and seeing as it is doing the same systemic wrongful statistical manipulation as all the others that AFACT et.al have released within Australia, and even our Federal Government has debunked, I filed it in the round filing cabinet along with the rest of the trash.

What has been interesting is the new Radio deluge that AFACT and their cohorts have been playing within Australia (talkback radio, and news mostly) saying how jobs have been lost (total bullshit) and our economy is worse for it ( This fallacious fact is so bad that even bullshit thinks its bullshit.

I've been thinking to complain to the Radio watchdogs for false and misleading facts etc, but I suspect that the average person understands it is nonsense and it would be classified as puffery so ok to air.

Re: Re: Same recycled efluence

That page is..... HILARIOUS to say the least!

I like this bit.....

"Piracy continues to have a negative impact on traditional channels. After watching a pirated version of a movie or TV program only...

13% go on to watch the original at the cinema
25% go on to rent or buy the original
10% go on to buy the original on a pay-per-view or subscription TV platform
10% download or stream via an online provider (added this year)"

Let's see, that applies to movies and TV? A lot of people I know will watch a TV show once. You can't see a TV show at the cinema. You can't garuntee a TV show will be on pay TV (though most high rating shows since 1999 are). And where the f**k in Australia do you legally download a TV show from? No, I'm serious with that question: I'd like to know!

Re: Re: Re: Same recycled efluence

Really I think this just goes to prove the point Mike has been making for several years - "pirates" are just underserved customers.

If 25% who download your movie or tv show go on to buy the product...
- What percentage of people that have never seen or heard of your movie or tv show go on to buy it?
- What percentage of the general population for that matter buys your movie or tv show?

I would say with near certainty that the answer to both questions is less (and FAR less) than 25%.

Re: Re: Re: Same recycled efluence

Absolutely agree. Read the actual PDF of the Report Summary (of course their is no info on what questions or anything else they are asking *eye roll*) and laugh at the pretty bus drawings, and the weirdness of interpretation of all the so called 'data'.

As for legally downloading TV shows in Australia, I will assume, and Yes I know what that can mean, that they are really talking about streaming and that most non-tech savvy people do not understand the difference.

In Australia you can actually watch online a fair amount of mainstream Free2air tvshows via streaming from the actual tv channels sites.

Channel Nine have http://fixplay.ninemsn.com.au/ where shows like Camelot, 'The Closer', 'Secret diary of a Call girl', Nikita, and a fair amount of Aussie only shows can be seen legally.

and then the big one ABC (like the BBC) with iView (and yes Apple dont like that name at all but have no rights in it) with shows like Doctor Who, huge amount of BBC UK shows, and again Aussie shows for free streaming.

There are ways of downloading the actual shows though they are using Flash (FLV) as a Transport layer with very low codec structures for fast viewing (No HD Definition at all) so not really that beneficial to download, unless you want to keep them for viewing at later date in same low quality (though the quality is still standard Definition TV -PAL)

Re: Clarifying the part from TorrentFreak that's defiantly stupid.

Re: Clarifying the part from TorrentFreak that's defiantly stupid.

"Just stop and consider as if you've actually gotten a warning. Continue file-sharing or get cut off completely... "

Or steal someone else's wifi until you get them cut off. Or get a friend to download stuff for them and copy it from them. Or switch to encrypted traffic that can't be killed without serious implications to industry (e.g. VPNs).

The one thing it will absolutely NOT lead to is "Oh, I'd better stop downloading 5 movies a week and spend $500 on them instead". At best, it might lead to higher uptake of services Netflix and Spotify services if and when they're allowed to offer service to the Australian market, but that probably won't cover the costs of these actions to begin with.

"Over time, the 22% would be whittled down to nothing."

At what cost? As with all corporate whores, you treat the inevitable collateral damage as if it's nothing. Hey, as long as someone gets paid, who cares who gets screwed in the process, right?

Re: Clarifying the part from TorrentFreak that's defiantly stupid.

Respectfully, how does this affect what TorrentFreak said? They are talking about the problems with the study, which asks people these questions. They are not making any claims here about how effective 3 strikes would be or anything that is relevent to anything you say in this post.

Also, it should be obvious, but the cut offs aren't based on evidence and convictions, so they don't come out of the 22% that are file sharers, they come out of the total combined users.

MPAA's Underlying Fallacy

The pirates will adapt

So if you receive a notice, and there is a way to detect the transgression, it won't be long, due to 'necessity being the mother of all invention' that there will be a more secure way of sharing files. People will go to forums, where only 'vetted' people share etc. Hell, I know work places where you can get gigs of movies by "sneaker net". You only need one or 2 to have proper access. It won't make any difference really.

Re: The pirates will adapt

Long?

Not at all, other people have already done all the hard work just look a Japan that have one of the extremest copyrights on earth, people there all use StealthNet to get things they want, it is encrypted, it is anonymous and the police can only get their hands on one or two guys a year and it is not because of the software it is because those people post identifying information.

We can use it here in the US to. It is no ones bee's wax what I do on line! I use StealthNet and RShare along with other tools and private servers around the world. With A**holes out there like this MPAA and with laws that say a CD is worth more then most high end super car, Literally you can steel a Bugatti Veyron and pay less in legal restitution then if you torrent 1 CD or DVD and that is if you only download that CD or DVD, if you are the one uploading then the fines are even higher. Where they come up with these numbers of how 1 downloaded CD 12 songs is worth 1.5 mill dollars is beyond me but as long as our government supports this kind of theft by media corporations They can kiss my you know what!